1932

Abstract

Language change as a result of language contact is studied in many different ways using a number of different methodologies. This article provides an overview of the main approaches to syntactic change in contact (CIC), focusing on the Romance language group. Romance languages are widely documented both synchronically and diachronically. They have been in extensive contact with other language families both in bilingual contexts and in creolization contexts. Furthermore, they present great microvariation. They are therefore ideal to tackle language change in contact. Given the breadth of studies targeting Romance languages in contact, only a selection of facts is considered here, namely -drop, differential object marking (DOM), and deixis. The article shows that microcontact, i.e., contact between minimally different grammars, is a necessary dimension to be considered within contact studies, as it provides insights that are often radically different from those provided by the observation of contact between maximally different languages.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030311
2021-01-04
2024-06-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/7/1/annurev-linguistics-011619-030311.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030311&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aalberse S, Backus A, Muysken P 2019. Heritage Languages: A Language Contact Approach Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publ. Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikhenvald AY, Dixon RMW 2001. Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aikhenvald AY, Dixon RMW 2007. Grammars in Contact: A Cross-Linguistic Typology Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Andersen H. 1988. Centre and periphery: adoption, diffusion and spread. Historical Dialectology J Fisiak 39–85 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Appel R, Muysken P. 1987. Language Contact and Bilingualism London: Arnold
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Badia Margarit A. 1994. Gramàtica de la llengua catalana Barcelona, Spain: Proa
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Baptista M. 2002. The Syntax of Cape Verdean Creole: The Sotavento Varieties Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publ. Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bayer R. 2013. Null subjects in creole languages Undergrad Honors Thesis, Univ. Mich Ann Arbor:
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Benincà P. 1986. II lato sinistro della frase italiana. ATI J 47:57–85
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Benito R. 2017. Differential object marking in Catalan: contexts of appearance and analysis MA Thesis, Univ. Barcelona Spain:
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Berretta M. 1989. Sulla presenza dell'accusativo preposizionale in italiano settentrionale: note tipologiche. Vox Romanica 48:13–37
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Berretta M. 1991. Note sulla sintassi dell'accusativo preposizionale in italiano. Linguistica 31:211–32
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Berruto G. 1987. Sociolinguistica dell'italiano contemporaneo Rome: Carocci
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bossong G. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung. Differentiel le Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen Tübingen, Ger: Narr
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Branigan H. 2006. Syntactic priming. Lang. Linguist. Compass 1:1–16
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Carminati MN. 2002. The processing of Italian subject pronouns PhD Diss., Univ. Mass Amherst:
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Carvalho AM, Child M. 2011. Subject pronoun expression in a variety of Spanish in contact with Portuguese. Selected Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics J Michnowicz, R Dodsworth 14–25 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Carvalho AM, Orozco R, Shin N 2015. Subject Pronoun Expression in Spanish: A Cross-Dialectal Perspective Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Casalicchio J, Frasson A. 2018. Cambiamenti nell'uso dei soggetti clitici veneti: il ruolo del contatto con l'italiano. Capitoli di morfosintassi delle varietà romanze d'Italia: teoria e dati empirici A De Angelis, A Chilà 117–33 Palermo, Italy: Cent. Stud. Filol. Linguist. Sicil.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Clyne M. 1997. Multilingualism. The Handbook of Sociolinguistics F Coulmas 301–14 Oxford, UK: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Costa J, Pratas F. 2012. Embedded null subjects in Capeverdean. J. Linguist. 49:33–53
    [Google Scholar]
  22. D'Alessandro R. 2015. Null subject. Contemporary Linguistic Parameters A Fábregas, J Mateu, M Putnam 201–26 London: Bloomsbury Press
    [Google Scholar]
  23. D'Alessandro R. 2017. When you have too many features: auxiliaries, agreement, and clitics in Italian varieties. Glossa J. Gen. Linguist. 2:50
    [Google Scholar]
  24. D'Alessandro R. 2018. Microcontact. What it is and what it does Paper presented at the UiL-OTS Colloquium, Utrecht Neth: Mar. 15
    [Google Scholar]
  25. De Houwer A, Ortega L 2018. The Cambridge Handbook of Bilingualism Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  26. de Prada Pérez A. 2015. First person singular subject pronoun expression in Spanish in contact with Catalan. Subject Pronoun Expression in Spanish: A Cross-Dialectal Perspective AM Carvalho, R Orozco, NL Shin 121–42 Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  27. DeGraff M. 1993. Is Haitian Creole a pro-drop language?. Atlantic Meets Pacific: A Global View of Pidginization and Creolization (Selected Papers from the Society for Pidgin and Creole Linguistics) F Byrne, J Holm 71–90 Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publ. Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Déprez V. 1994. Haitian: a pro-drop language. J. Pidgin Creole Lang. 9:1–24
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Diez F. 1882. Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen Bonn, Ger: Weber
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Döpke S. 2000. The inter-play between language-specific development and cross-linguistic influence. Cross-Linguistic Structures in Simultaneous Bilingualism S Döpke 79–103 Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publ. Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Escandell-Vidal V. 2007. Acusatiu preposicional i dislocació amb clític. Caplletra 42:1–24
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Escandell-Vidal V. 2009. Differential object marking and topicality: the case of Balearic Catalan. Stud. Lang. 33:832–84
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Ferguson CA. 1964. Diglossia. Language in Culture and Society D Hymes 425–39 New York: Harper Int.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Ferreira V, Bock K. 2006. The functions of structural priming. Lang. Cogn. Process. 21:1011–29
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Filiaci F. 2010. Null and overt subject biases in Spanish and Italian: a cross-linguistic comparison. Selected Proceedings of the 12th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium C Borgonovo, M Español-Echevarría, P Prévost 171–82 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proc. Proj.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Fiorentino G. 2003. Prepositional objects in Neapolitan. Romance Objects: Transitivity in Romance Languages G Fiorentino 117–51 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Flynn S. 1983. A study of the effects of principal branching direction in second language acquisition: the generalization of a parameter of Universal Grammar from first to second language acquisition PhD Diss., Cornell Univ Ithaca, NY:
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Flynn S, Foley C, Vinnitskaya I 2005. New paradigm for the study of simultaneous v. sequential bilingualism. ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism J Cohen, KT McAlister, K Rolstad, J MacSwan 768–74 Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Formentin V 1998. Loise De Rosa, Ricordi Rome: Salerno
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Frasson A. 2020. Clitics are not enough: on agreement and null subjects in Talian. Linguist. Anal. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Haspelmath MAPiCS Consort. (Atlas Pidgin Creole Lang. Struct. Consort.) 2013. Expression of pronominal subjects. The Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures SM Michaelis, P Maurer, M Haspelmath, M Huber 244–47 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Heine B, Kuteva T. 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Helland C. 2004. The interpretable-uninterpretable feature distinction and attrition in Catalan Paper presented at Generative Linguistics in the Old World 2004 Thessaloniki, Greece: Apr. 18
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Hulk A, Müller N. 2000. Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 3:227–44
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Irimia MA, Pineda A. 2019. Differential object marking and Scales: insights from Romance diachrony. Proc. Linguist. Soc. Am. 4:57
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Kellerman E. 1978. Giving learners a break: native language intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability Work. Pap. Biling. 15 Ont. Inst. Stud. Educ Toronto:
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kellerman E. 1983. Now you see it, now you don't. Language Transfer in Language Learning S Gass, L Selinker 112–34 Rowley, MA: Newbury House
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Kellerman E. 1986. An eye for an eye: crosslinguistic constraints on the development of the L2 lexicon. Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition E Kellerman, MS Smith 35–48 New York: Pergamon
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Laleko O, Polinsky M. 2016. Between syntax and discourse: topic and case marking in heritage speakers and L2 learners of Japanese and Korean. Linguist. Approaches Biling. 6:396–439
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Lambert WE. 1955. Measurement of the linguistic dominance in bilinguals. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 50:197–200
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Ledgeway A. 2009. Grammatica diacronica del napoletano Tübingen, Ger: Max Niemeyer Verlag
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Ledgeway A. 2012. From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic Typology and Change Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Ledgeway A. 2020. From Latin to Romance syntax: the great leap. The Oxford Handbook of Diachronic and Historical Linguistics P Crisma, G Longobardi Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press In press
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Ledgeway A, Roberts I. 2017. Principles and parameters. The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax A Ledgeway, I Roberts 581–628 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Luján M, Parodi C. 1996. Clitic-doubling and the acquisition of agreement in Spanish. Perspectives on Spanish Linguistics 1 J Gutiérrez-Rexach, L Silva Villar 119–38 Los Angeles, CA: Univ. Calif. Los Angel. Dep. Linguist .
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Madeira AM, Xavier F, Crispim ML 2012. Uso e interpretação de sujeitos pronominais em português L2. Textos Selecionados do XXVII Encontro da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística A Costa, C Flores, N Alexandre 376–97 Lisbon, Port: Associação Port. de Linguíst.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. McWhorter J. 2018. The Creole Debate Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Moll FB. 1991. Gramàtica Històrica Catalana València, Spain: Universitat de València
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Montrul S. 2004. Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: a case of morpho-syntactic convergence. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 7:125–42
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Montrul S. 2011. Multiple interfaces and incomplete acquisition. Lingua 121:591–604
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Montrul S, Bowles M. 2009. Back to basics: differential object marking under incomplete acquisition in Spanish heritage speakers. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 12:363–83
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Montrul S, Ionin T. 2012. Dominant language transfer in Spanish heritage speakers and L2 learners in the interpretation of definite articles. Mod. Lang. J. 96:70–94
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Montrul S, Sánchez-Walker N. 2013. Differential object marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers. Lang. Acquis. 20:109–32
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Müller N, Cantone K, Kupisch T, Schmitz K 2002. Zum Spracheneinfluss in bilingualen Erstspracherwerb: Italienisch-Deutsch. Linguist. Ber. 190:157–206
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Müller N, Hulk A. 2001. Cross-linguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 4:1–21
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Müller N, Kupisch T, Schmitz K, Cantone K 2006. Einfürhung in die Mehrsprachigkeitsforschung Tübingen, Ger: Gunter Narr
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Nocentini A. 1985. Sulla genesi dell'oggetto preposizionale nelle lingue romanze. Studi linguistici e filologici per Carlo Alberto Mastrelli299–311 Pisa, Italy: Pacini
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Nocentini A. 1992. Oggetto marcato versus oggetto non-marcato: stato ed evoluzione di una categoria nell'area euro-asiatica. L'Europa linguistica: contatti, contrasti, affinità di lingue. Atti del 21° congresso internazionale di studi (Catania, 10–12 settembre 1987) A Mocciaro, G Soravia 227–46 Rome: Bulzoni
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Paradis J, Genesee F. 1996. Syntactic acquisition in bilingual children: autonomous or interdependent. Stud. Second Lang. Acquis. 18:1–25
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Paradis J, Navarro S. 2003. Subject realization and crosslinguistic interference in the bilingual acquisition of Spanish and English: What is the role of input. J. Child Lang. 30:371–93
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Pinto M. 2006. Subject pronouns in bilinguals: interference or maturation?. Acquisition of Syntax in Romance Languages L Escobar, V Torrens 331–52 Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publ. Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Platzack C. 2001. The vulnerable C-domain. Brain Lang 77:364–77
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Polinsky M. 1997. American Russian: language loss meets language acquisition. Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics W Brown, E Dornisch, N Kondrashova, D Zec 370–407 Ann Arbor: Mich. Slav. Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Polinsky M. 2006. Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. J. Slav. Linguist. 14:161–219
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Polinsky M. 2011. Reanalysis in adult heritage language. Stud. Second Lang. Acquis. 33:305–28
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Polinsky M. 2018. Heritage Languages and Their Speakers Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Ritchie WC, Bhatia TK. 1996. Handbook of Second Language Acquisition New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Ritchie WC, Bhatia TK. 2009. The New Handbook of Second Language Acquisition Leiden, Neth: Brill
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Rizzi L. 1982. Issues in Italian Syntax Dordrecht, Neth: Foris
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Roberts I. 2019. Parameter Hierarchies and Universal Grammar Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Ross M. 2001. Contact-induced change in Oceanic languages in north-west Melanesia. Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance AY Aikhenvald, RMW Dixon 134–66 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Rothman J. 2010. On the typological economy of syntactic transfer: word order and relative clause attachment preference in L3 Brazilian Portuguese. Int. Rev. Appl. Linguist. 48:245–73
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Rothman J. 2011. L3 syntactic transfer selectivity and typological determinacy: the Typological Primacy Model. Second Lang. Res. 27:107–27
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Rothman J. 2013. Cognitive economy, non-redundancy and typological primacy in L3 acquisition: evidence from initial stages of L3 Romance. Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2011 S Baauw, F Drijkoningen, L Meroni, M Pinto 217–48 Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publ. Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Rothman J. 2015. Linguistic and cognitive motivations for the Typological Primacy Model of third language (L3) transfer: timing of acquisition and proficiency considered. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 18:179–90
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Rothman J, Alemán Bañón J, González AJ 2015. Neurolinguistic measures of typological effects in multilingual transfer: introducing an ERP methodology. Front. Psychol. 6:1087
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Sancho P. 2002. La preposició i el sintagma preposicional. Gramàtica del català contemporani J Solà, MR Lloret, J Mascaró, M. Pérez Saldanya 1698–796 Barcelona, Spain: Empúries
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Scontras G, Fuchs Z, Polinsky M 2015. Heritage language and linguistic theory. Front. Psychol. 6:1545
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Serratrice L, Sorace A, Paoli S 2004. Crosslinguistic influence at the syntax–pragmatics interface: subjects and objects in Italian-English bilingual and monolingual acquisition. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 7:183–205
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Serratrice L, Sorace A, Filiaci F, Baldo M 2009. Bilingual children's sensitivity to specificity and genericity: evidence from metalinguistic awareness. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 12:239–57
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Silva-Corvalán C. 1994. Language Contact and Change: Spanish in Los Angeles Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Sippola E. 2013. Ternate Chabacano. The Survey of Pidgin and Creole Languages, Vol. 2: Portuguese-Based, Spanish-Based, and French-Based Languages SM Michaelis, P Maurer, M Haspelmath, M Huber 149–55 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Sorace A. 2000. Syntactic optionality in non-native grammars. Second Lang. Res. 16:93–102
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Sorace A. 2003. Ultimate L2 attainment. Handbook of Second Language Acquisition M Long, C Doughty 130–51 London: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Sorace A. 2004. Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax-discourse interface: data, interpretations and methods. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 7:143–45
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Sorace A. 2005. Selective optionality in language development. Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social L Cornips, K Corrigan 55–80 Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publ. Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Sorace A. 2011. Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism. Linguist. Approaches Biling. 1:1–33
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Sorace A. 2012. Pinning down the concept of interface in bilingualism. A reply to peer commentaries. Linguist. Approaches Biling. 2:209–16
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Sorace A, Filiaci F. 2006. Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian. Second Lang. Res. 22:339–68
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Sorgini L. 2019. Expansion and retention: what DOM shouldn't be doing Paper presented at the Graduate Student meeting, Utrecht University Neth: Dec. 16
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Sornicola R. 1997. L'oggetto preposizionale in siciliano antico e in napoletano antico: considerazioni su un problema di tipologia diacronica. Ital. Studien 18:66–80
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Steinkrüger PO. 2008. The puzzling case of Chabacano: creolization, substrate, mixing and secondary contact. Stud. Philipp. Lang. Cult. 19:142–57
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Tekavčić P. 1972. Grammatica storica dell'italiano Bologna, Italy: Il Mulino
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Terenghi S. 2019. Romance ternary demonstrative systems as a probe into the architecture of person features. Invited seminar, Leiden University, Leiden, Neth., Nov. 26
  105. Thomas EM, Mennen I 2014. Advances in the Study of Bilingualism Bristol, UK: Multiling. Matters
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Thomason SG, Kaufman T. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Tsimpli IM, Sorace A, Heycock C, Filiaci F 2004. First language attrition and syntactic subjects: a study of Greek and Italian near-native speakers of English. Int. J. Biling. 8:257–77
    [Google Scholar]
  108. White L. 2011. Second language acquisition at interfaces. Lingua 121:577–90
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030311
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error